Talk:Royal Netherlands Army

Spike missile

Shouldn't the "Spike " Missile be added to the inventory list ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_(missile)#cite_note-IISS-22

Since it listed as owned by the dutch army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.120.148.171 (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong term for Recon Company

In proper English, I believe the term Recon Company (in the organisation table) should read: Recce Squadron. Recon Company assumes an infantry unit, since the BVE's are cavalry, the correct term for a company sized unit should be: Squadron. They are refered to as squadrons in practice (when mentioned in English) and also in the discussion below! Can someone with more knowledge about Wikipedia than I have change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Korporaal1 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

English translation of structure?

Can anybody offer an English translation of the Structure of the Army table? Tronno

No, these things are Dutch and therefore fundamentally untranslatable ;o). But we'll do it anyway.

• Brigadeverkenningseskadron: Brigade Reconnaissance Squadron
• Pantserluchtdoelartilleriebatterij: armoured AA-battery — i.e. the German Gepard.
• Luchtverdedigingscompagnie: air defence company
• Pantsergeniecompagnie: armoured engineer company
• Herstelcompagnie: (maintenance &) repair company — the Dutch are utterly realistic
• Bevoorradingscompagnie: supply company
• Geneeskundige Compagnie: medical company
• Afdeling: (artillery) battalion
• Zwaar: Heavy

The other terms should be readily understandable to anyone having any understanding — and if he hasn't any, why bother to explain? Some names are purely traditional: the veldartillerie is not equipped with field artillery, nor is the Rijdende Artillerie horse-drawn: all use the M109.

--MWAK 6 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)

This page needs restructuring

This page is still lacking a structure perhaps we should start thinking about major restructuring? For example the Cavalry links to the Brigade structure are hard to figure out. Arnoutf 20:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The RNLA has reorganised

The 41th Mechbrig has been disbanded (2006); as a result a lot of units have been shifted to other MechBrigs or have been disbanded altogether. I'm not aware of the exact changes but I will look them up and edit the page accordingly if no one beats me to it.

Edit: In fact I'll work on the above suggested restructuration; in time I will add a little about the history of the RNLA and comprehensively break down the organisation, structure and international partnerships and such.

Brisbane2000 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

History?

Why is there mention at all of the history of the RNLA? Not even of the history of the Dutch armed forces or at the very least a link? Skeptic77 23:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a comprehensive history in the Military history of the Netherlands, and the Dutch navy and air force pages have history sections. Whilst a short history maybe useful on this page, I would be concerned that it does not just repeat parts from the Military history of the Netherlands article. Chwyatt 10:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

PzH 2000 numbers

Can anyone clarify the Dutch order and in-service numbers?

I have seen on the Royal Netherlands Army and the PZH 2000 pages as different times the following numbers.

• 36 PzH 2000 (of which 12 are in storage)
• 24 (of which 12 are in storage).
• 24 (33 on storage/12 for sale) ???

Anyone know what the exact numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chwyatt (talk • contribs) 10:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact number but I believe 24 are operational with units, 12 are in storage and 21 have yet to be delivered by KMW. Seperating the number of operational vehicles, vehicles in storage and vehicles ordered is really confusing though. Personally I think we should just stick with the number that the army has regardless of wether or not they're operational. EggyNL (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

File:Logo Royal Netherlands Army.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Logo Royal Netherlands Army.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Logo Royal Netherlands Army.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Srebrenica

It is wrongly said that Dutch court ruled that Dutcbatt was responsible for the death of 300 Bosniaks, they ruled tht the Dutch State was responsible (Kok.Voorhoeve etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmTheInsane (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Split

I took the structure section out from this article and expanded it and made it more detailed: Structure of the Royal Netherlands Army I also took the equipment section out and streamlined it and took out all the duplicate stuff: Equipment of the Royal Netherlands Army I would also like to take and streamline/clean up the units section of this article. Is anyone opposed to that? noclador (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)